LOL. Do an experiment -- enter the data as HADCRUT3. Then go to the HADCRUT3 website and compare their graph of their data, using their information shown here: <img src="http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/_nhshgl.gif"> </img> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ Any explanation of why "landfortrees" graph doesn't match the primary source for their own data?
Closing the thread will only help you save face. You're out of ammo, and WAY over your head. Indeed, you have nothing left other than name calling and conspiracy theories ("cultists"?). Dave OWNED you. Accept your loss, like a good trader would, and move on.
Arnie, Like I told the other guy, all you are left with is name calling and logical fallacies. I suggest that you too accept your loss, like a good trader would, and move on.
Well that's false, in fact I just cited the HadCRUT3 source data (which didn't match the site "landfortrees" cited by someone else. In fact, the site is SO far off the actual data I think it's fair to say that the site is dishonest. Of course with a name like "landfortrees" it's probably for burning all trees and land. Nope. "RealClimate is not affiliated with any environmental organisations. Although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content. Neither Fenton nor EMS has ever paid any contributor to RealClimate.org any money for any purpose at any time. Neither do they pay us expenses, buy our lunch or contract us to do research. This information has always been made clear to anyone who asked."
Where are your pom-poms? What are you? His little sister? Dave never could prove that the rise in temps is caused by c02. Even he admitted that. The whole AGW theory is based on that. End of story. Everything else was puffery.
Well yet again, here's all the monthly data, also broken down by season, and anyone can see that the temperature is increasing: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Actually it's proven because it's the nature of the CO2 molecule to absorb IR in two different ways. And because the atmosphere has more CO2, it will inevitably absorb more IR. QED. I'm not sure how you can think this is not the case.
It's "feint," not "faint" and I'm not "feinting" but in fact have posted extensive reference material to primary sources (such as the temperature data above linked directly to NASA.)
LOL. Like I said, and you keeping backing me up, you have nothing left other than insults. For goodness sakes, stop embarrassing yourself.